Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 27, 2013 5:00am-5:31am PST

5:00 am
inches by 2100. executed. and this proposed study represents the staff and a larger effort to address the sea level rise and bewe know that it will impact our property and far less is known about adaptation strategies. and the map here, is the sea wall from china basin north as you see as part of the embarcadero national district and the sea wall south appear 54 was constructed after the 1950s, and my poor attempt to show you where mission creek is located. and mission creek provides a really ideal location to study adaptation strategies because it is one of the lowest lying areas. and storm water run off from mission bay, also trains to mission creek and complicating future flooding events and this is an ideal place to study and this graphic shows the existing
5:01 am
condition in green, and in red, the 2050 scenario, and with 15 inches of sea level rise and in blue, the scenario with a55 inches of sea level rise. >> this proposed study is the out growth of prior sea level rise work and led by dcdc on its adaptation adapting to rising tides project and this project is a collaborativive planning effort to help san francisco communities to adapt to the rise and event flooding. this project has engaged local regional and state and federal agency and organizations as well as non-profits and private association. together this project, team and its partners are working towards the project goal of increasing the bay area's preparedness and the sea level rise and strong events and protecting critical systems dcdc led the project study in
5:02 am
concert with the dutch knowledge for the climate research program. >> this is the study in the map here. >> furtherance of this project, delta alliance has awarded the engineering firm which specializes in coastal engineering and 80,000 grant for the project area, mission creek and this identifying a project area and looking at adaptation and moving to i is a key. >> it requires the city to provide the matching funds, equal to 100 percent of the donations that is an $80,000 from the city. the city has asked spur to be the project manager for this work because of the most recent success if managing a similar grant involving multiple federal and state and local partners to the effects of erosion along ocean beach.
5:03 am
and it has a tight schedule and requires the coordination and also the interest in building upon the proposed partnership as we develop and implement the city rise, and there are elements that we will need that are reflected here and non-profit partnership and building upon the prior work in this case and in the excellent science and to facilitate the development of the grant, funds, and the city, through the port, will enter into a grant agreement with spur, and will compensate spur for $30,000 for the project management services. >> this chart shows the city's contributions and you can see the port of san francisco, and it will propose and contribute, $25,000, also partnering with
5:04 am
the public utility commissions and also 25,000, and the planning department, 20 and the department of public works, 20,000 and the city administrator's office, $20,000. and this combined with the grant awarded 80 has a total project budget of 190,000, and 160, will be for the engineering and the evaluation study and 30 will be for spur for the project management, and it is a really nice showing that all city departments have confirmed their contribution and are contributing to this effort.
5:05 am
and with your approval today, we expect to execute the grant and have the study completed by mid 2014. >> so we are asking for your approval to enter into a grant with spur, and we believe that this is an excellent effort that will help us move along and what is a very big project. and that we will all be engaging in for many years to come. >> so moved. >> second. >> all right, comment, woods? >> good afternoon commissioners i am really excited about this study, wearing two hats and i live on mission creek and so
5:06 am
the sea level rise is an immediate concern, and i also with the committee and we have spent many years working on developing the mission bay project and the port owned parks all around the shore line. and knowing how we can adapt to rising tides is a critically important piece.
5:07 am
>> thank you. >> any other public comment, and comments from commissioners? no. sorry. >> sue, and i am glad that you are tackling and not going to become republican naysayers, i want to point out that you have the jurisdiction along the shore line. i want to remind you what you did a couple of minutes ago.
5:08 am
that see wall is in the flood season and at 330, and the other sea wall are all to flooding and sooner or later the port has to deal with lands that they own on the other side of the embarcadero as well as the piers. >> i am going to pay attention to these studies as well and i would just put out your schedule, and for awarding the warriors, is they have a lease that will end in 2080. and you look at this, and this
5:09 am
is between, 10 to 17 inches, and 2050 and 31 to 69 by 2100 and so just kind of split the difference. and we have a big problem. and the port has toto as we
5:10 am
5:11 am
undertake it and we have to keep it in mind and we appreciate the public comment that the rarina has to take that into consideration and we want to keep this in the forefront and we as a commission have asked the staff to keep us updated periodically not only with the study but with anything else that we can. and i think that i also want to point out not just with spur. we are working with bcdc and i recently had the opportunity to talk with the chairman. and this is as you know, one of the number one priorities and i think
5:12 am
>> if we do our seven and a half miles and the others don't, that snot going to happen. i think that is critical to the future, and the safety of the city of san francisco and for the city and for the port. >> obviously, and i am delighted that all of these different agencies and departments are chiping in, and to help out with this study and i think that it is very, very important. and the more that we, the more, valid that we get, and we get from this, and we can sometimes, some time in the future, formulate the plan, and what we are going to do about it. and i have seen something in there, where there is a dutch company? yeah, and they are... and they are the experts in that field. and for any of you, who have been to amsterdam they have done a great job keeping the
5:13 am
water on for many years and so we need all of the experts and how are we are going to get them we are going to fund them. i am delighted. >> thank you. >> well, all in favor? >> aye. >> okay. resolution, number 1 3-47 has passed. >> okay. >> and item 11, new business? >> okay, i want to raise just one topic of new business in response to a comment that was made during and that is i am not going to read the statement but i think that i just want for the public record to be noted that the port did issue a public statement about 8 washington. and renee martin did put out a statement in terms of opposition and i think that we should refer to that statement and i would ask you to just put that in the record in terms of what our response. and so it isn't that we didn't respond, we did make a comment on 8 washington in the ballot initiative and that should be for the record as well. >> okay. >> thank you.
5:14 am
>> will do. >> any other items for new business? >> yes? >> yeah. i would like next month to, and so we can get an update on where they are at with the negotiations between metro and the port, and the iow and kind of get an update on where they are going, and before it comes to the full port commission and have they sat down and where is that, thank you. >> okay. >> okay. >> any other items? >> commissioners? >> okay. >> and then i have the motion for adjournment? >> seconded. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> thank you. >> we are adjourned. >> thank you. >> test,
5:15 am
test, test, test, test, test test >> good afternoon we will call this meeting historic preservation commission to order. >> welcome to the san francisco historic preservation commission regular meeting for wednesday, november 20, 2013. like to take roll at this time. (calling names) commissioner wu is expected to be absent.
5:16 am
at this time members of the public any address the agenda expect agenda items with respect to agenda items your item will be addressed at that time. i have no speaker cards. any member of the public wish to speak on non-agenda items >> that places you under the regular calendar. there's only one item on the green connection if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them. >> seeing no questions we'll move on. item two the staff report and announcements. tim fry commissioners, i have two items to report to you.
5:17 am
first, i wanted to give you an updated on the silver cottages work has stopped they site but on monday shelly of our staff and myself met with the project sponsors reviewed the condition of the cottages. and they're working on security measures foyer the cottages while they awe witting wait the lawsuit. the protection plan is short term hopefully and it will begin in less than 90 days. the project spokesperson will know more this week and mark hal beggar is in the audience and happy to answer any questions. we're working closely together and hoping to have a resolution
5:18 am
to any stoucht issues in the short-term. the second is last week, i gave a brief presentation at the cities graffiti board from the graffiti incident at the high beggar bank. the advisory board had questions about the historic preservation commission relating to abatement. they're trying to encourage property owners to put in a report. i expressed our willingness to work with them to achieve some of those golds and we'll be coordinating with the department of public works to see how we can work better together. p that concludes my presentation if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them.
5:19 am
seeing no questions we'll move on >> commissioners that places you under commission matters president's report. >> just an update on the real our program we've got a couple of gentlemen helping out. we set a launch date of march one. we're getting a a lot more traction from real terrors i have been talking when they may want to train all the real terrors for the first banish it could be a good kick start. a green good friend wants to have it at their site >> commissioner could you give more details. i know i remember discussing it earlier in the year but i think
5:20 am
it's an cellist e exciting project >> the real touch to a lot of the folks in buying home in the district and surveys are happening throughout the city. so the idea was we get realtors trained and preservation approved saying i understand the preservation rules so california preservation foundation is putting together four or five we came up with >> 5. >> yeah. 5 different training items. and i can actually i'm not prepared inform give you a brief >> is that a certification. >> yeah. through preservation and they'll role it out
5:21 am
statewide. >> okay. >> and it's all online training not having to show up. >> thank you for your initiative. >> and thanks to the staff for the help. that's it for president's report >> moving to item 4 damgs of draft minutes for november 13th. >> commissioners any comments or corrections. any member of the public wish to speak seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i move we adapt. >> second. >> thank you. >> on that motion to adapt the draft minutes (calling names) so moved, commissioners, unanimously 6 to zero and places you on item 5 commissions
5:22 am
questions and comments. >> commissioner pearlman. >> i have met with one of the board members ted about the project. just to discuss he wanted to know more about our process and what if there were any issues that we thought about it. >> thank you. any other disclosures. seeing none, we've we'll move on >> commissioners that is for items proposed for continuance items. for 940 grove street. this is being proposed by staff to be continued indefinitely. >> there was some interest from the project sponsor but they're not here. >> can you define what indefinitely means. >> it simply means it has to be
5:23 am
renoticed. >> city attorney can i speak to this item real quickly give an update. >> to the item. >> yeah. real quick. basically should we continue it that is whether or not we do mr. fry and myself are going out to 940 grove on friday afternoon. the packet wasn't complete and so we moved it forward. so we will get a list of what they need to do, what items need to be put into the package and calendar it >> just to further clarify if
5:24 am
he choose to december 4th and continue it indefinitely at that point. >> so anyone from the public wish to examine on this seeing none. >> i'll move to continue this indefinitely. >> second. >> on that motion to continue 6 indefinitely (calling names) so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. and places you under our consent calendar all matter are routine and maybe activity upon by a single-action. there will be no separate vote
5:25 am
and unless the staff or public wishes for it. one item case at 3101 request for certificate of appropriateness >> anyone want to pull this from the consent calendar seeing none. public wish to do so seeing none. do we have a motion >> i move we approve this. >> motion and a second. >> motion to approve with conditions (calling names) so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and places you under our regular calendar request for a
5:26 am
certificate of appropriateness. >> good afternoon, commissioners department staff. the project before you is typical of a appointness to separate the notre dame lot. the 1996 subdivision created one for the delores street and another for the st. joseph hall at the rear plus the adjacent open space to the south. it currently houses the children's day school a central playground area and ann lower housing. it is for 3 temporary clamor structures for an additional 10 and a half years. it would create additional
5:27 am
spaces with approval that was asked for by the advisory board to be removed after 10 years it's set to expire in 2015. as of november 1, '89 the department had received one comment in opposition to the proposal and over 80 e-mails in support. department staff recommendation approval with condition to insure with the prototype work is in compliance with the plan. one that the project sponsor will remove the 3 temporary clamors from the date of planning commission approval for the conditional use authorization and two, that the project sponsor will maintain
5:28 am
the 3 clamors in save and sanitary condition any structure that is not properly maintained will be corrected. 3 the site including landscaping will keep the temporary site screened from view and for the project sponsor will provide an update to the commission in the form of an informational hearing on the school fund-raising and the capital and lastly ever two years beginning at the date of the approval the project sponsor will have a written update on the city hall raising efforts and general capital improvements in accordance with the timeline that was provided to the staff for consideration. the project sponsors are present
5:29 am
and can answer questions also i'm available for any questions. that concludes my presentation >> thank you. commissioners any questions of staff. >> yeah. thank you. i'm pretty new could you give me a agreeing a little bit of background. i assume the conditions aren't able to be complild with >> the project sponsors can talk about that. this is a multiple phase expansion to the schools facility and it seems like the timeline has been adjusted for the fundraising to advance that phase schedule. they're not exactly where they thought they would be >> and does the sponsor have a
5:30 am
presentation. >> they do. >> okay. >> we are the sponsor. this is moll i didn't shows he head of school and i'm valerie i'm the acting project manager on a series of projects at the school. i think you were asking why the first 10 years. when the commission give us approval for the temporary facilities bacterin years ago they were for on a increase in a super class size. they were put out in accordance with the planning commission. once they were in and started to looking at st. joseph's hall it's a difficult building to make work per the building code for children grades 2 and

23 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on